tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post1843519835317704187..comments2014-12-12T05:29:46.343-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: "Nonbelievers Have No Objective Basis for Morality" vs. the EvidenceDr. Hector Avaloshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10840869326406664177noreply@blogger.comBlogger75125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-57087949504406661142008-01-22T17:39:00.000-05:002008-01-22T17:39:00.000-05:00I'm glad to see this conversation is alive and roa...I'm glad to see this conversation is alive and roaring! Without getting too deeply into the semantics game everyone seems to be playing, I have one closely-related question: What does it mean when a theist states that moral truths require an authority who is also a supreme being? What does it mean for a truth to be dependent on a being, instead of just plain true?<BR/><BR/>I agree that moral truths are dependent on beings, specifically those beings which feel the effects of moral actions, but I don't think this is the same thing as saying that those truths require a "third party" Being to resolve moral questions. Or is it?Lenoxushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10809085020841868387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-31611500452809154352008-01-22T12:27:00.000-05:002008-01-22T12:27:00.000-05:00David,I don't know if you'll see this...I've been ...David,<BR/>I don't know if you'll see this...I've been away from the computer for a few days.<BR/><BR/><I>Jennifer, it is YOU who made the claim that atheism causes depraved behavior.</I><BR/><BR/>I must have been writing this when you were posting your comment.<BR/>This was in relation to showing through history that a lack of belief in a god has led to more civilized people groups. I'm fairly confident that you cannot show this because I have been studying history pretty intensely for the past few years and have not seen <B>and</B> examples.<BR/><BR/>I thought we were talking about general objective morality, not specific "leaders". While I never educated myself on the inner thought life of people who don't believe in a god, I did notice that those people I've known personally who have claimed to be atheists do not have any standard for morality. <BR/>My point was not to say that atheists are all going to be depraved, but that no object of morality...no specific reason for being "good"...does not work in history.<BR/><BR/>Granted, religion has caused division between people, but <B>there has always been division between people</B>. <BR/><BR/>Again I ask for the vision which you say will cure the world. Paint it for us.Jenniferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14314188298401214441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-55075659720767513382008-01-19T00:39:00.000-05:002008-01-19T00:39:00.000-05:00David,You wrote, “They are derived from the intrin...David,<BR/><BR/>You wrote, “They are derived from the intrinsic nature of the moral qualities themselves (love, for example, is of value because of its intrinsic nature---this would be so even if I, or anyone else, were sufficiently psychologically malformed as to be unable to value or appreciate love).”<BR/><BR/><BR/>I would like to take it one step further. Instead of, “I, or anyone else,” what if we make it, “if no one else?”<BR/><BR/>If absolutely no one on the planet placed any value on love, they didn’t feel it brought any value to their lives, it was something everyone considered to be a hindrance, it wasn’t anything that any human desired; would it still have value?<BR/><BR/>We may be talking semantics here, but when you use the word “intrinsic,” I think of intrinsic qualities, things that that would be the same regardless of human interpretation. Some examples would be gravity, conservation of energy, and biological evolution. These things are intrinsic properties; they require no human interpretation to give the same results.<BR/><BR/>To say there is intrinsic moral value, to me at least, means that a moral norm is inherently good regardless of human nature. But, without taking into account human nature as it currently exists, how can that claim be sustained?<BR/><BR/>This is not to say that there are not objective moral truths based on the current state of human nature (I haven’t come to a conclusion on that point yet), but just to say that discussing moral value as intrinsic, without regard to humanity seems untenable.M. Tullyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06056410184615941086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-43202680827717568432008-01-18T22:41:00.000-05:002008-01-18T22:41:00.000-05:00>>Solon, you presented no actual argument. I think...>>Solon, you presented no actual argument. <BR/><BR/>I think you'll eventually agree it is actually you who hasn't. For example, maybe you didn't read the post quoting you before the one you cite?<BR/><BR/>And then the post that followed:<BR/><BR/>>>You said:<BR/>>>That is obviously false given the definition of "intrinsic" and "subjective."<BR/>>>That is not an argument.<BR/><BR/>Well, actually that is very good argument also. Not to be pedantic and spell it out too much, but something does not have intrinsic value if it is merely a subjective experience. Before our species came along did these states you prefer have "intrinsic" value for pond scum? When the planet blows up, will they still have "intrinsic" value? No.<BR/><BR/>>>You are referring to means and ends. I am referring to different characters and whether there is something intrinsically better about one<BR/><BR/>Yes, exactly, hence all my points about how your preferences are clearly not intrinsically valuable but simply subjective preferences.<BR/><BR/>>>you have the choice to "reboot" <BR/>>>A rational being [...] would, I contend, see that the second of these packages involves qualities clearly intrinsically "better" than those of the first <BR/><BR/>Is it rational to choose to "reboot" with a wife with bigger boobs? Are bigger boobs thus intrinsically valuable? <BR/><BR/>As you might see now, it is you who haven't presented an argument at all, instead just declaring things "intrinsic" if some particular animal with some degree of cleverness we call "reason" enjoys experiencing them - and then calling anyone who disagrees a fool. Prefer on what basis? If I prefer good food to rotten food there is nothing intrinsically better about that food, except as a means to an end, living, which is not a "rational" choice or intrinsically valuable either. Even old Kant couldn't come up with anything good in and of itself, except for some flimflam about a good will (as a back door into the "real" Christian world), so I highly doubt you will :-)<BR/><BR/>>>Or, again, imagine a society in which<BR/>>>If you can honestly say you think there is nothing intrinsically superior and preferable about the first society...<BR/><BR/>Sorry, again it makes no sense, there's not even an argument there. If I'm a hungry, warmongering, loner brontosaurus, does your society still have "intrinsic" value and is it still the "rational" choice for me? Of course not.<BR/><BR/>Why pretend to do away with god if you still want to hide behind his "truths"? This is why I often feel Christians are far more natural and honest what with their open faith than "atheists" with their shameful hidden one.Solonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10183337828680527907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-7216624352310385932008-01-18T13:34:00.000-05:002008-01-18T13:34:00.000-05:00Solon, you presented no actual argument. You said:...Solon, you presented no actual argument. You said:<BR/><BR/><B><BR/>That is obviously false given the definition of "intrinsic" and "subjective."<BR/><BR/></B><BR/><BR/>That is not an argument.<BR/><BR/>If you wish to present an actual argument against my position I will be glad to discuss it.<BR/><BR/>As to your statement:<BR/><BR/><B><BR/>Or simply state honestly that these are merely conditional truths open to test and debate? That IF (and only if) you want to achieve X, then usually Y (some act or arrangement previously called "moral") is a good means to it? But maybe not, and if you have a different goal, then it is false or irrelevant.<BR/><BR/></B><BR/><BR/>You are referring to means and ends. I am referring to different characters and whether there is something intrinsically better about one than the other and, therefore, about the behaviors that naturally flow from them.<BR/><BR/>To illustrate, imagine a science fiction scenario in which you have the choice to "reboot" your own brain.<BR/><BR/>You have only two software packages to choose from. One will make you cruel, sadistic, unsocialable and unaffectionate. The other will make you kind, affectionate, loving, brave, and sociable.<BR/><BR/>A rational being, capable of fully comprehending what it would be like to be both of these sorts of person and able to view both without preliminary bias , would, I contend, see that the second of these packages involves qualities clearly intrinsically "better" than those of the first (you might note the influence of the ideal observer meta-ethical theory here).<BR/><BR/>Or, again, imagine a society in which individuals are caring, sympathetic and connected by bonds of affection. Another in which they are hate-filled, spiteful and constantly attempting to do harm to one another.<BR/><BR/>If you can honestly say you think there is nothing intrinsically superior and preferable about the first society, based on what it is like to be an individual of that sort in a society of that sort, then I propose, you are a flat-out fool.David B. Ellishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09468191085576922813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-71477455991041644202008-01-18T06:42:00.000-05:002008-01-18T06:42:00.000-05:00>>Love is of value because of what the experience ...>>Love is of value because of what the experience of love is like as an experience.<BR/><BR/>>>I stand by that statement and calling it "obviously false" doesn't make it so. If you wish to present an actual argument as to why its incorrect feel free to do so.<BR/><BR/>I did that first time above, which is what I referred you to the 2nd time. <BR/><BR/>To try again:<BR/><BR/>Eating toast is of intrinsic value because of the experience of eating toast? It makes no sense. And whose experience??? Hence, it isn't intrinsic. And none of it bears any relation at all to the truth or falsity of moral claims.Solonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10183337828680527907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-90617084688335353132008-01-18T02:20:00.000-05:002008-01-18T02:20:00.000-05:00>>They are derived from the intrinsic nature of th...<B><BR/>>>They are derived from the intrinsic nature of the moral qualities themselves (love, for example, is of value because of its intrinsic nature---this would be so even if I, or anyone else, were sufficiently psychologically malformed as to be unable to value or appreciate love).<BR/><BR/>David, this is so obviously false, as I pointed out in a post above, why do you persist?<BR/><BR/></B><BR/><BR/>Love is of value because of what the experience of love is like as an experience. <BR/><BR/>I stand by that statement and calling it "obviously false" doesn't make it so. If you wish to present an actual argument as to why its incorrect feel free to do so.David B. Ellishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09468191085576922813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-7320989016487535252008-01-18T02:13:00.000-05:002008-01-18T02:13:00.000-05:00David, Can you back up your position with history?...<B><BR/>David, <BR/>Can you back up your position with history?<BR/></B><BR/><BR/>Jennifer, it is YOU who made the claim that atheism causes depraved behavior.<BR/><BR/>It is you, therefore, who needs to back up their claim.<BR/><BR/><B><BR/>I really don't understand how you can hold the view that the myth of a culture can be separated from the morality of the culture.<BR/></B><BR/><BR/>Our culture is diverse and so are its myths. Historically, myths have been outgrown. Hopefully, this will be the case for christianity as it has been for religions in the past. I, for one, have already outgrown it and found life richer for having done so.David B. Ellishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09468191085576922813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-45342567631651588112008-01-17T16:35:00.000-05:002008-01-17T16:35:00.000-05:00What I find fascinating about most monotheistic re...What I find fascinating about most monotheistic religions is their idea that specific actions are morally wrong. Not the results of these actions, but the very physical acts themselves. Results are NOT the primary focus.<BR/><BR/>While this sort of thing works with three year olds, it really not very practical in the real world. <BR/><BR/>In contrast, If you look at the teachings of Buddhism, acts themselves are not wrong, but specific results are. The physical act of drinking alcohol is not morally wrong in itself, but the results effect your ability to perceive reality prevents you from being present in the here and now. <BR/><BR/>For example, I was watching a nature show with my Father about giant wasps and a Buddhist bee keeper. The Buddhist knew a near by nest of giant wasps could attack his bees and destroy the hive, however his beliefs prevented him from destroying their nest. This was in contrast to the other near by Japanese bee keepers who were always on the lookout for wasps nests and destroyed them to protect their bee hives. <BR/><BR/>My father, who is a theist, suggested "The bee keeper could just tell the non-Buddhist bee keepers the location of the giant wasp nest." Being somewhat of a student of Buddhist philosophy, I informed him that telling the other bee keepers would have the same results as if he destroyed the nest himself. As such it would be against his beliefs. <BR/><BR/>Having an affair with a married woman is likely to have significant consequences and require deception. In most cases these consequences can produce negative results, such as disrupting marriages and families. Marriage is a specific level of commitment between two people and extramarital affair usually is a violation of this level of commitment. <BR/><BR/>The result of Murder is the unwarranted denial of the victim's right to live without their consent. Our lives are the most precious things we own and murder is the equivalent of permanently and forcefully taking that right away. It's clearly wrong on many levels. <BR/><BR/>It's been suggested that humans, as a species, have only gained the ability to truly step back and think about our thoughts and actions within the last 3,000 to 5,000 years. Before then, our instincts acted as a auto-pilot until our conciseness could emerge as part of the evolutionary process. <BR/><BR/>If you look at human race as essentially toddlers when it comes to understanding our thoughts, desires and minds, the world around us makes much more sense. However, This would be a critical phase in our development since we would be transitioning between instinctual urges that have served us well in the far distant past and a new found conciseness. <BR/><BR/>As such, our current moral frameworks would based in part on instincts, such as cooperation as a means to survive, and empathy arising from our conciseness awareness of others.Scotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-48936022976341210702008-01-17T14:30:00.000-05:002008-01-17T14:30:00.000-05:00>>They are derived from the intrinsic nature of th...>>They are derived from the intrinsic nature of the moral qualities themselves (love, for example, is of value because of its intrinsic nature---this would be so even if I, or anyone else, were sufficiently psychologically malformed as to be unable to value or appreciate love).<BR/><BR/>David, this is so obviously false, as I pointed out in a post above, why do you persist?Solonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10183337828680527907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-71225554616581930542008-01-17T14:05:00.000-05:002008-01-17T14:05:00.000-05:00David, Can you back up your position with history?...David, <BR/>Can you back up your position with history?<BR/><BR/>I really don't understand how you can hold the view that the myth of a culture can be separated from the morality of the culture. Historically, myth has been the moral fountain for humanity and as Jean Markale points out in his book <I>The Celts: Uncovering the Mythic and Historic Origins of Western Culture</I>, "A myth can after all be a false story about real facts." (pg.15)<BR/><BR/>So...which came first, the morality or the myth? If morality came first why do you think myth would be necessary?Jenniferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14314188298401214441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-68644606448546285202008-01-17T14:04:00.000-05:002008-01-17T14:04:00.000-05:00If past examples of pure atheist thought played ou...<B><BR/>If past examples of pure atheist thought played out in lifestyle are an indicator of morality, I guess that morality includes adultery, liberal drug use, depression, alcoholism, sexual exploitation of children etc... I would like to hear what the object of atheist morality is.<BR/></B><BR/><BR/>What, theists don't commit adultery, abuse drugs and alcohol, get depressed or molest children?<BR/><BR/>You don't even bother to NAME any of these theoretical "past examples" of depraved atheists. I, however, could list dozens upon dozens of prominent theists, including leaders within christianity, guilty of precisely these sorts of crimes.<BR/><BR/>I could, for example, find many examples of christian leaders (protestant as well as catholic) guilty of child molestation.<BR/><BR/>Can you name even a single leading atheist who has been found guilty of the same?<BR/><BR/>People who live in glass houses.....David B. Ellishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09468191085576922813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-79049783878158513172008-01-17T13:54:00.000-05:002008-01-17T13:54:00.000-05:00Agreed that God is not required for there to be mo...Agreed that God is not required for there to be moral truths, right and wrong.<BR/><BR/>But, again, I consider the word "objective" to be a mistaken way of describing the concept of moral facts.<BR/><BR/>And, more importantly, not only is God not required for there to be moral facts---it is simply NOT possible to basis the existence of moral facts on the existence of God (or of any other metaphysical fact or force, including karma).<BR/><BR/>In other words, (2) is false not because God isnt the only thing that moral facts can be based on but because moral facts CANNOT be based on God at all. This is equally true of Karma and evolution. Trying to base morality on any of the three makes morality arbitrary in ways I've already described.<BR/><BR/><B><BR/>So you are saying that moral truths are true because you enjoy their consequences. <BR/></B><BR/><BR/>A common misinterpretation of my position. No. Moral truths are not derived from personal preference (that would yield arbitrary results as much as God, Karma or evolution). They are derived from the intrinsic nature of the moral qualities themselves (love, for example, is of value because of its intrinsic nature---this would be so even if I, or anyone else, were sufficiently psychologically malformed as to be unable to value or appreciate love).david ellisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-50917474913228411702008-01-17T13:49:00.000-05:002008-01-17T13:49:00.000-05:00There are many people who act morally who are non-...<I>There are many people who act morally who are non-believers and they have been doing so since the dawn of time.</I><BR/><BR/>What was the object of their morality? <BR/>If past examples of pure atheist thought played out in lifestyle are an indicator of morality, I guess that morality includes adultery, liberal drug use, depression, alcoholism, sexual exploitation of children etc... I would like to hear what the object of atheist morality is.Jenniferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14314188298401214441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-45221815631600707592008-01-17T13:34:00.000-05:002008-01-17T13:34:00.000-05:00David, Christians posit something to the following...David, <BR/><BR/>Christians posit something to the following... <BR/><BR/>(1) Something called objective morality exists. <BR/><BR/>(2) This something called objective morality can only come from God. <BR/><BR/>(3) Therefore God exists. <BR/><BR/>I'm merely pointing out that even if (1) was true, which I do not affirm, they can't get from (1) to (3) because (2) is false.<BR/><BR/>Therefore, we don't even need to argue against (1) as it's irrelevant to the existence of God. <BR/><BR/>Whatever the evidence is pointing to, objective or not, God is not required.Scotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-12138438074019676342008-01-17T12:20:00.000-05:002008-01-17T12:20:00.000-05:00Evolution DOES tell us which would be preferable; ...<B><BR/>Evolution DOES tell us which would be preferable; it would depend on which society you belong to. If you had evolved into a hyper-competitive society, you would be more likely to have a strong competitive drive that would not be satisfied in a non-competitive environment.<BR/></B><BR/><BR/>That tells us nothing about WHICH of those two societies/species it would be intrinsically better to be a part of (a question ideal observer theory, which my meta-ethical theory is related to, can). <BR/><BR/>Imagine, for example, a species which evolved such a sadism toward outsiders that they naturally practice the most terrible tortures possible on conquered peoples, including raping their children while the parents watch.<BR/><BR/>On your theory of an evolutionary basis of moral truths, this practice would be morally right. <BR/><BR/>Like theories basing morality on God, yours yields arbitrary results (where essentially ANYTHING can be morally good).<BR/><BR/>Moral truths which are arbitrary are not moral truths. Your theory fails---as does ANY theory which places the basis for moral truths outside the concrete characteristics of, yes, subjective experience itself. <BR/><BR/>As I said before, the real basis for moral truths is subjective but nonarbitrary. Any attempts to make the basis objective (existing outside of and independent of experience itself) inevitably makes morality arbitrary.<BR/><BR/>I'm not saying evolution is irrelevent to morality. Obviously it shapes the species, for the most part, for survivability---a morally relevent quality. But it is not itself the basis for morality.David B. Ellishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09468191085576922813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-27802643474007001952008-01-17T11:18:00.000-05:002008-01-17T11:18:00.000-05:00Saying evolution is the basis of morality provides...<I>Saying evolution is the basis of morality provides nothing to tell us which of these types of being it would be preferable to be.</I><BR/><BR/>Evolution DOES tell us which would be preferable; it would depend on which society you belong to. If you had evolved into a hyper-competitive society, you would be more likely to have a strong competitive drive that would not be satisfied in a non-competitive environment.<BR/><BR/>However, this is not the case here. We are talking solely about human morality, and since humans share an evolutionary history we would expect humans to share a base rudimentary morality from our early history as social animals.<BR/><BR/><I>Yet there IS a basis for preferring one to the other. The real basis for moral truths. Love, for example, is to be valued not because its rewarded by Karma nor because it was selected for by evolutionary processes, but simply because of the nature of what it is to experience love, to be a loving individual and to live in a community bonded by love.</I><BR/><BR/>So you are saying that moral truths are true because you enjoy their consequences. Why do you enjoy love? Why do you dislike pain? The answer to both is evolution.<BR/><BR/>Solon, people always look at morality from the human perspective (how can we do otherwise?) and note that humans often share moral values even in very different social contexts. So, it is quite understandable that, since some moral values are shared among almost all sentient beings that the person knows, they would generalize them to the universe. Understandable, but unsupported.Shygetzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12587529149916263563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-30002763044264690672008-01-17T06:02:00.000-05:002008-01-17T06:02:00.000-05:00>>The fact that morality is based on the subjectiv...>>The fact that morality is based on the subjective does NOT mean there are no [...] truths about what values are intrinsically better than others.<BR/><BR/>That is obviously false given the definition of "intrinsic" and "subjective."<BR/><BR/>Why not have the courage to say that morality has nothing to do with truth and then investigate what morality actually is? <BR/><BR/>Or simply state honestly that these are merely conditional truths open to test and debate? That IF (and only if) you want to achieve X, then usually Y (some act or arrangement previously called "moral") is a good means to it? But maybe not, and if you have a different goal, then it is false or irrelevant.<BR/><BR/>I don't see people putting this much effort into arguing that it is simply TRUE that fresh food is "good" and rotten food not, just because our particular species uses it to advance itself. <BR/><BR/>Whence the need to declare good and evil amongst our acts and hide behind the imprimatur of truth? Do you not have the courage for your goal, to reward and punish without it?Solonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10183337828680527907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-62513734831121452442008-01-17T05:42:00.000-05:002008-01-17T05:42:00.000-05:00>>The real basis for moral truths. Love, for examp...>>The real basis for moral truths. Love, for example, is to be valued <BR/>>> simply because of the nature of what it is to experience love, to be a loving individual and to live in a community bonded by love.<BR/><BR/>I declare that truth has nothing to do with moral truth, but rather power [or insert your preferred feeling here] is the basis for moral truth, simply because of the nature of what is is to experience it.<BR/><BR/>(Of course, that is as absurd and arbitrary as declaring "love" to be the basis, even if it doesn't sound as warm and fuzzy.)Solonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10183337828680527907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-41345231584985023702008-01-17T02:17:00.000-05:002008-01-17T02:17:00.000-05:00I'm not saying I believe in Karma. I'm saying that...<B><BR/>I'm not saying I believe in Karma. I'm saying that theists can't claim what they would consider "objective morality" could only come from God. <BR/></B><BR/><BR/>And what I'm saying is that neither karma nor God can provide a basis for moral truths (objective morality is the wrong word to use for moral truths, in my opinion, for reasons I've already explained).David B. Ellishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09468191085576922813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-37890801593805017502008-01-16T23:28:00.000-05:002008-01-16T23:28:00.000-05:00No need to respond. There is no argument. Whethe...No need to respond. There is no argument. Whether or not someone acts consistently according to so called "moral absolutes" or ignores them... that doesn't change the fact that they are distinct from behavior. Dan Barker and others are fond of completely de-objectifying logic and morality, comparing it to a process like digestion. Thats fine with me, but that means you have to sit on the bench when objectivists want to talk about absolute foundations. You aren't living on any external standard, so why argue over whether you "should" do something? Quite silly if all we have are "is" equations.Davenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-65094154571817093502008-01-16T18:08:00.000-05:002008-01-16T18:08:00.000-05:00zilch said... Where are the Christian responses to...zilch said... <BR/>Where are the Christian responses to this? Not here, and also not at the two links William posted (as of 16.1.07)... C'mon, defenders of objective morality! Show some spunk!<BR/><BR/>Well Zilch,<BR/><BR/>Though I cannot say for sure, I tend to think that that the reason you don’t see more Theistic responses is that John’s original premise nails the thesis to the door (please excuse the euphemism.)<BR/>No matter what appeal to emotion you have ever embraced before, when faced with the overwhelming evidence that the pencil is your hand, you eventually must accept that the pencil is your hand. Or alternatively accept, that everything you accepted based on evidence (gravity, electricity, your own existence), may not exist at all (i.e. adopt a thorough going post-modernist world view.)M. Tullyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06056410184615941086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-35300877600940795662008-01-16T17:35:00.000-05:002008-01-16T17:35:00.000-05:00Oh, P. S. David,I would love to see it one day go ...Oh, P. S. David,<BR/><BR/>I would love to see it one day go from nation-states to all of humanity.<BR/><BR/>TullyM. Tullyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06056410184615941086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-60358082939598582542008-01-16T17:30:00.000-05:002008-01-16T17:30:00.000-05:00“Imagine two intelligent species evolve on separat...“Imagine two intelligent species evolve on separate planets. One evolves into fundamentally caring beings (more so than humans, by far). The other evolves into a form of mentality which is highly cooperative, if brutally competitive, within its own society but enormously cruel and sadistic to anything outside its ingroup.”<BR/><BR/>Well, I hate to break this to you, but all of the available evidence to date suggests that this is exactly what happened on planet on earth. Over time the rules of the family have been extended to the rules of the tribe and then to the clan and then to the “land” and then to the nation-state. It was a gradual process, happening over a long period of time, in slow, incremental steps.M. Tullyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06056410184615941086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-81367869629083625282008-01-16T16:40:00.000-05:002008-01-16T16:40:00.000-05:00David / John, I'm not saying I believe in Karma. I...David / John, <BR/><BR/>I'm not saying I believe in Karma. I'm saying that theists can't claim what they would consider "objective morality" could only come from God. <BR/><BR/>Being a negative, atheism doesn't prevent you from believing in "objective morality". It's simply a lack of belief in God or Gods.Scotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.com